If Hitchock (more than) encouraged Yandura to criticize the DNC then, yes, the firing was justified.

DNC employees shouldn't be responsible for anti-DNC articles and press. The first rule of campaigns (and the DNC?) is to not generate negative press for your boss.

That being said, the DNC does need a strategy on gay issues.

And on the lighter side, my google search also produced a link to many photos from Doyle's wedding to the above-referenced Republican consultant.

The above came from an easy, if time-consuming, Google search. I'm sure similar information can be found on each of the other consultants.

(1) Is married to a Republican. And not just any Republican...

(2) Has told folks his proudest moment as a consultant was helping Denise Majette defeat Cynthia McKinney in 2002. (Some Democratic consultants might argue their proudest moment is defeating a Republican...)

(3) Worked for a McKinney rival in 2004 (when Majette ran for U.S. Senate). After Doyle's candidate lost to McKinney, Doyle told The Hill McKinney might be unelectable, prompting the following response from the late Rep. Bob Matsui.

Rep. Bob Matsui (D-Calif.), the DCCC chairman, said Doyle was a sore loser.

"I don't know where he comes from," Matsui said. "I guess he's sour grapes. ... He lost the race. He should go home and put his tail behind his back. He doesn't know what we're doing at the DCCC."

Matsui also suggested that Doyle could face repercussions for attacking a Democratic nominee. "He's got some other candidates that we're going to have to look at carefully, too," the congressman said, mentioning Rick Crawford in Georgia's 11th District, which is held by Phil Gingrey (R).

1. Bloggers have -- or should have -- little disdain for the "activist elite."

(The activist elite is composed of folks who were once members of the "progressive activist base.")

2. Bloggers have taken -- or should take -- issue with the tactics (or lack there)of the "activist elite."

(Bloggers don't find fault with the "activist elite" as people, but as strategists and policymakers).

3. Bloggers are -- or should be -- upset with Hillary Clinton for her "centrist" strategy and policymaking.

(In the substantive sense, Hillary Clinton stands with the "activist elite.")

4. Bloggers don't like Hillary Clinton because they are -- gulp -- more elite: more informed, more active, more partisan, etc.

(Wheras the larger pool of Democrats buys the oh so effectively marketed Republican talking point of Hillary as a "liberal." My non-activist friends never ask if Hillary is liberal enough, but rather if she is too liberal to be President -- even though they themselves are significantly more liberal than she).

Heh.

I think the above post places too much faith in polls...So much so as to be nearly devoid of meaning/value.

The polls miss intensity of favorability/unfavorability.

Most apolitical folks I know don't think much either way of Gore; most (Democrats) make a snarky remark about how much better life would be if here were President.

Further, I think Gore would have a fairly easy time re-defining himself, precisely because (a) he hasn't been a national figure for years and (b) the media would be itching to see a "new" Gore -- and the contrast to the old Gore would be great...

Who funds the Third Way?

I was under the impression Hackett was in Brown and Strickland's good graces.

Which makes recent events all the more difficult to understand.

My guess? The DC establishment is afraid of Hackett -- unknown and inexperienced (what did he get, several thousand votes in the Democratic Primary before the netroots gave him a two week crash course in politics?) -- and worked the phones to get Brown to reconsider.

That being said, Brown is an experienced pol and a true progressive. Hackett is neither.

I cast my lot with Brown. (For very different reasons than Jerome).

Already parroting Republican talking points? (Gigli). Come on, now.

Afflect is the star of Good Will Hunting, Dogma, and Chasing Amy.

People don't always vote on issues. As Ah-nold demonstrated, they vote for celebrity. And beauty.

Afflect would make a great candidate. And Garner would make a tremendous surrogate.

Republicans are smart enough to realize celebrity -- Ah-nold, Reagan, J.C. Watts -- is valuable in politics.

Democrats? We don't do enough to embrace -- as candidates -- our famous friends.

Missouri may not be as sexy as Florida or Ohio, but the state is equally as important. In every 20th century presidential election save that of 1956, the candidate who won Missouri won the election.

More importantly, the Republicans in 2002 took control of Missouri's legislature for the first time in more than 50 years.

The Show Me State is trending red. To turn the tide, we must Act Blue.

Beginning with Jeff Smith for State Senate in 2006.

Ever read "Bringing Down the House?"

We're all on the same team. John works for the DCCC, not the DLC or the GOP. We may disagree on method -- and I do, thoughts to come -- but we should do so in a constructive manner.

Let's keep it civil.

Please.

Could Dean have used the Internet more effectively in Iowa and New Hampshire? Sure. (Which is what I think you're getting at...)

But could he have run a much, much, much better field operation in Iowa? Yes. Could he have saved millions had better budgeting decisions been made? Yes. (The cellphone bills for a single month, for example, exceeded...And the number of people who had access to campaign credit cards...)

Should Dean have hired different people -- or changed leadership teams in mid-stream? Yes and yes.

Again, that's enough. I think we're a lot closer in our orientation than our posts might suggest; as you noted, your initial post could have been phrased better, and as I'll now add, my response did indeed assume the most extreme extension of what you had written.

because the "national internet team wasn't allowed to grow Iowa from the ground up."

Dean lost Iowa because the media had turned against him and he "had a shitty field operation." Traditional? Also. But Kerry won Iowa with a traditional field operation -- and Bush won the presidency with a more or less a traditional field operation. Despite the M$M playing the "scream" video thousands of times between IA and NH, Dean finish with a very respectable 26% in NH because...a tremendously strong field operation.

The Internet will never replace many of the functions of a traditional field campaign -- repeated person-to-person contact, the opportunity to meet candidates in small settings, and the quality of contact/measure of voter status.

If Democrats had to depend on Internet data to know which voters were 1s,2s,3s,4s, and 5s, they'd end up with an operation that looked much like...Iowa's, where "1s" weren't really ones.

The Dean campaign figured out that, in the Internet age, the "opportunity cost" of interacting with supporters not in IA or NH is very low -- a few people in Burlington -- but the benefit is very high.

MeetUps in IA and NH were more or less always a joke. And for good reason. Why would a IA or NH activist accustomed to repeated door-to-door contacts and small-setting candidate forums attend a monthly meeting with other supporters? Were they so inclined, they could meet a similar number of supporters...nightly in campaign offices!

much more where this came from. but for now, that's enough.

Ok. Which two abstained, and which Rep. missed the vote?